My First Query To The Climate Science Rapid Response Team

Antarctic sea ice is currently about three standard deviations above normal, according to NSIDC graphs.

The excess sea ice is necessarily located at relatively low latitudes, and the sun is near its peak in Antarctica now. This means that large amounts of sunshine are being reflected back into space by the excess ice.

How much southern hemisphere cooling does this excess ice generate?


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Rapid Response Team. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to My First Query To The Climate Science Rapid Response Team

  1. MikeTheDenier says:

    HA! Do you really expect a response?

    • suyts says:

      lol, probably not a coherent one!

    • ChrisD says:

      I’m sorry, were you expecting an instant response no matter what the question? If so, does that seem reasonable?

      • You are starting with the spam early today.

      • ChrisD says:

        That is not spam, Steve. Grow up.

      • Mike Davis says:

        ChrisD:
        You could provide the answer to Steven’s question because you seem to be equally as knowledgeable as any of those on the CSRRT. It is obvious you read all the important climate sites.

      • MikeTheDenier says:

        Instant response?? Do you just pull this stuff out of thin air or your ass? Where in Steve’s post do you see ANYTHING about an instant response??

      • ChrisD says:

        Mike, your comment does not address the original comment, my response, or the page topic. I feel sure that Steve will quickly admonish you to stop spamming.

      • ChrisD says:

        MikeTheD, my response was to your comment, not to Steve’s post. That is how I read it. If that was not your intent, then all you had to say was, “No, I didn’t mean instant. I don’t think he’ll get a response at all.” Pretty simple.

      • Mike Davis says:

        I always thought Rapid was consistent with instant more so than a delayed response would be. I was part of a Rapid Response team for Civil Emergencies that required activity within a predetermined period after being advised of the emergency.
        Immediate if not sooner was the goal set and practiced during random drills.
        How can they call them selves a Rapid Response Team if they have not yet responded to Steven’s query. I think that should be covered under false advertisement or deliberately making false claims to promote their organization. If they are accepting donations it is taking money under false pretenses. In other words: FRAUD!

      • Martin C says:

        Chris, at it again eh . . .

        You are CLEARLY TROLLING by adding the word ‘instant’ ahead of ‘response’ in your reply. No one expects that, nor even made a comment about how fast a response might be forthcoming.

      • ChrisD says:

        Steve:

        Nobody said anything about an instant response, as opposed to your instant spam.

        Martin:

        You are CLEARLY TROLLING by adding the word ‘instant’ ahead of ‘response’ in your reply

        Oh, really?

        Mike Davis:

        I always thought Rapid was consistent with instant more so than a delayed response would be. … How can they call them selves a Rapid Response Team if they have not yet responded to Steven’s query.

        I read MTD’s comment as derision that there was not a quick response. I asked a perfectly civil question, which could have been easily and pleasantly answered, “No, I didn’t mean instant.” I clearly left open the possibility that maybe the comment wasn’t intended to read as I read it (“If so, … etc.”).

        You are the ones who are escalating this into a war, just like you always do. A single five-word response would have sufficed, and that would have been the end of it.

      • Mike Davis says:

        I read over the comments posted on this thread and again find Chris attempting to divert the thread from its original intent which seems to be what would be the response and what the group considers RAPID. The only use of the word rapid was the screen shot of the web response Steven received after his query.
        Chris is attempting to entertain the rest of us like a fill in act until the main show begins!

      • Mike Davis says:

        My statement was in reply to 4 of yours and MTD’s comment was suggesting that no response was likely rather than speed of response.
        MTD appears to think if a response is forthcoming at any time it will be equal to a miracle.

      • ChrisD says:

        MikeD, I posted a single query of fewer than 20 words. It was civil and noncombative. It included a hedge in case I was misreading MTD’s comment. It could have been answered with a response of five words, or no response at all. Everything else stems from you guys ranting about it.

      • ChrisD says:

        MTD’s comment was suggesting that no response was likely rather than speed of response.

        If that’s what he meant, fine. It wasn’t the way I read it, but I realized that it could be read differently, which is why I put the “If so” in there. Try reading my comment again and imagine that it came from someone else. Anyone else. Is it actually so bad?

        Good Lord, y’all are prickly.

      • Mike Davis says:

        ChrisD:
        You are always Civil and Non combative while asking questions not related to the comments in the thread. If you had left out the word INSTANT you would have been asking questions in line of the thread which could have been answered by two words. NO YES

      • Mike Davis says:

        ChrisD:
        I quit trying to interpret what some one meant but took their words at face value long ago. I still think that what MTD said was what he meant word for word using commonly used definitions.
        I may be wrong and would hope MTD would correct me and point to a better dictionary for his region of the world!

      • MikeTheDenier says:

        MTD said “HA! Do you really expect a response?”

        Did I say INSTANT? Did I even imply INSTANT? My post is very clear – nohidden words, no hidden meaning. It says “HA! Do you really expect a response?”

        Let me be very clear and precise.

        Steve, Do you really expect a response?

      • ChrisD says:

        @Steve

        Here is a novel idea for you. How about commenting on the science?

        When the post is about the science, that’s what I comment on. This post isn’t about the science. How about that?

      • ChrisD says:

        @MikeTheDenier

        Did I say INSTANT?

        That’s the way I read it. I wasn’t 100% sure, so I included the words that I will now bold for everyone:

        I’m sorry, were you expecting an instant response no matter what the question? If so, does that seem reasonable?

        “No” would have sufficed as a response.

      • ChrisD says:

        Upon further review, I guess just “No” would have been ambiguous. But “No, I didn’t mean that” would have sufficed.

      • glacierman says:

        ChrisD, have you moved on to arguing with yourself now?

  2. Mike Davis says:

    I am sure the CSRRT will provide the best fabricated information that fits the agenda currently being followed by the CLB!

  3. peterhodges says:

    i still don’t understand why people just don’t ignore chris…

    t

  4. James Mayeau says:

    Lets face it, when they cobbled together the Rapid Response question form they were still expecting to have several hundreds of climate gurus manning the switchboard.
    That quickly devolved to 39, and then further down to 6 devoted answer guys.

    Now that it’s actually up and accepting questions that number has been pared down to 3 part time climate teachers.

    I expect it the response time will be scaled back accordingly to something less than rapid.

  5. They are awaiting an email reply from Piltdown Mann and the non-science Cabal at CRU before a ‘Rapid’ response to Steve – given that these clowns lose their data bases, don’t understand stats, can’t program software and probably have difficult evacuating their own bodies; don’t expect a response until the standard time frame of at least 3 years as passed [see 1998 AGW study Mann et al., Briffa 2001, IPCC 2007 etc.] and the answer will be – Co2.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s